Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Fuzz]

And for edge cases, get a PHEV.

I don't think we should even allow pickup trucks and massive Suburban type vehicles to be sold without them being partially electrified(probably PHEV at minimum). They can gain a lot in regenerative braking, and the people buying them seem to have infinite amounts of money/credit, so the added cost shouldn't deter buyers(and will more than make up for it in fuel savings). This is something they should do by 2025. Super easy win here.

[flamesfever]

The money flows where it will get the best return, and Canada has become one of the worst places to invest with all the rules and regulations, government inefficiency, increase in taxation, problems with FN people, etc.

Where is the money going to come from to increase our grid, to supply the EVs? If you say the government, where are they going to get the money? What will be the impact on the power cost?

IMO there are many people these days that think the Government will look after us and solve all our problems, when in fact it's we the people, if given the right incentive and opportunity, will provide the ways and means to do what is required.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

You're not being realistic.

I think you're dreaming if you think the carbon tax will change behaviour fast enough to make a difference.

The biggest emitters in the world do not have a carbon tax.
Most developing countries are going to burn more fossil fuels in the next 25 years.
China / India / Europe are going to burn record amounts of coal the next 10-15 years.

Canada is being delusional thinking that the carbon tax or mandated EV only sales is going to do anything, and yet we are extremely singular focused.

There has to be data available on what 25% increase in EVs in Canada will require in terms of power production. Where will that production come from? Solar is great in some provinces, but a tough sell in others & wind is not reliable at all in most provinces. Hydro is great, but not everyone lives in Manitoba or Quebec where capacity could be built out.

That means a fast move towards more EVs will equal even more fossil fuels needed to create power.

Unless there is some other breakthrough you think will happen between now and 10 years from now.

A combination of Geoengineering , DACC and current renewable growth rates will take care of us as taxation mildly changes behaviour.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

The money flows where it will get the best return, and Canada has become one of the worst places to invest with all the rules and regulations, government inefficiency, increase in taxation, problems with FN people, etc.

Where is the money going to come from to increase our grid, to supply the EVs? If you say the government, where are they going to get the money? What will be the impact on the power cost?

IMO there are many people these days that think the Government will look after us and solve all our problems, when in fact it's we the people, if given the right incentive and opportunity, will provide the ways and means to do what is required.

Most legitimate sources actually lean closer to the opposite.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

The money flows where it will get the best return, and Canada has become one of the worst places to invest with all the rules and regulations, government inefficiency, increase in taxation, problems with FN people, etc.

Where is the money going to come from to increase our grid, to supply the EVs? If you say the government, where are they going to get the money? What will be the impact on the power cost?

IMO there are many people these days that think the Government will look after us and solve all our problems, when in fact it's we the people, if given the right incentive and opportunity, will provide the ways and means to do what is required.

In a lot of ways these aren't really problems, and could be quite the opportunity.
Smart charging is already readily available and easy. When loads are low (at night), your car charges, when loads are high, your car doesn't. This can actually help even out base load on the grid which does a few things:

1) balancing the grid helps make it more stable, lower variances make running things more efficient, so if car charging ramps up over night as power usage drops as we go to sleep, that can have a have a smoothing effect on demand and prices. Smooth demand results in better operation and lower prices.

2) For the most part people already have sufficient service in their homes to add a level 2 charger. It's probably not feasible to be doing laundry, cooking dinner while the kids are playing xbox, and charging your car all at the same time, but again, it's a matter of balancing that load/demand, which is already pretty trivial

3) Adding reliable base demand (charging cars at night), can/will incentivize adding base generation to the grid. Alberta's grid is pretty tight on base load generation right now, if there were signals that base load demand was going to increase and be relatively stable, then the decision to add base generation (likely NG fired) becomes a lot more straight forward

I understand not everyone has a great understanding of the power grid (I'm not an expert, but I do dabble), and what can/will be done to manage the transition to EV's but it's worth remembering that the people who's job it is to know these things, have thought of them too and are working on them.

Power companies (generators, distributors, and retailers) are the ones that will pay up to go forward with this transition because it's an opportunity for them to grow.
Ultimately that means the end users will pay for what they want/need, but as I said, a more stable demand = a more stable market = lower prices for everyone.

There are certainly ways this could go sideways, but there is also a big opportunity here for everyone, which means pretty big incentives to get it right.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Most legitimate sources actually lean closer to the opposite.

As you can probably guess, I am leaning more toward resource development. I am also aware of the large amount of money coming into our country by people escaping from much less favorable regimes. However, a large portion of that money is driving up house prices and keeping a large segment of our population out of the house market.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Just a quick example of what kind of opportunity there could be.

Say Enmax offers you a smart charger.
The deal works like this.
Typical operation, you plug in your car. If/when Enmax wants/needs more load to balance the grid, if your car needs to charge, they turn on your car. If they want load lower, your car isn't charging. When your car is charging on Enmax's schedule you pay a fixed, lower rate.

At any time, you can override their smart charging, charge as usual, and pay the retail rate for power like you do in your home.

Over the normal week, come home from work. Most nights you figure you've got enough juice for the next day if you don't charge any, so you leave it on smart mode.
Every morning you've either got what you had last night, which is enough for today, or more if they charged you. When you are charging, you're saving money.

Now it's Friday night, and you want to go to the mountains tomorrow, but you've only got 50% charge. Time to switch it off smart mode, pay normal rates, and make sure you've got what you need for tomorrow.

Win/Win. You're playing less overall, you've still got the flexibility that you need for your car, and grid operators are able to better match load and generation.

None of that scenario is at all far fetched, and I suspect will be the norm relatively soon.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

In a lot of ways these aren't really problems, and could be quite the opportunity.
Smart charging is already readily available and easy. When loads are low (at night), your car charges, when loads are high, your car doesn't. This can actually help even out base load on the grid which does a few things:

1) balancing the grid helps make it more stable, lower variances make running things more efficient, so if car charging ramps up over night as power usage drops as we go to sleep, that can have a have a smoothing effect on demand and prices. Smooth demand results in better operation and lower prices.

2) For the most part people already have sufficient service in their homes to add a level 2 charger. It's probably not feasible to be doing laundry, cooking dinner while the kids are playing xbox, and charging your car all at the same time, but again, it's a matter of balancing that load/demand, which is already pretty trivial

3) Adding reliable base demand (charging cars at night), can/will incentivize adding base generation to the grid. Alberta's grid is pretty tight on base load generation right now, if there were signals that base load demand was going to increase and be relatively stable, then the decision to add base generation (likely NG fired) becomes a lot more straight forward

I understand not everyone has a great understanding of the power grid (I'm not an expert, but I do dabble), and what can/will be done to manage the transition to EV's but it's worth remembering that the people who's job it is to know these things, have thought of them too and are working on them.

Power companies (generators, distributors, and retailers) are the ones that will pay up to go forward with this transition because it's an opportunity for them to grow.
Ultimately that means the end users will pay for what they want/need, but as I said, a more stable demand = a more stable market = lower prices for everyone.

There are certainly ways this could go sideways, but there is also a big opportunity here for everyone, which means pretty big incentives to get it right.

Does drawing power at night, when we have lots of solar added, and producing peak in the daytime make sense? You'd be incentivizing grid batteries rather than base-load, I think. And if we just add NG to mostly power EV's, does that make sense environmentally? I know that EVs are better even on NG, but it's not a huge difference.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by zamler

Not sure if intentional or not, you left out that driving EVs reduces overall carbon output.

But what is the tipping point? 25% total EV adoption = offset in carbon output even if you use carbon emission heavy power sources to power the EVs?

Honest question.

I think you know I'm very pro EV. I think there are tons of net positives, and long-term it is exciting to see how sustainable and cost effective they will be which is just fantastic from a consumer perspective.

But I just can't see how we think mandating a push towards EVs in a short time frame is going to be anything less than a disaster for our energy needs.

A big part of this discussion is happening as a result of someone posting that EVs lose 30-50% of their battery capacity in cold weather, and most of Canada has been dealing with cold weather the past few weeks.

Even here in Manitoba where our power is dirt cheap, renewable, etc, etc. Everything you need for a EV friendly environment. If everyone owed an EV and the power grid were built up to handle charging and battery needs + / - 10-20%, suddenly it gets cold and everyone needs 50% more power capacity to get the same amount of range. How do you think the grid will handle that? Not well.

I think people really don't realize what is at stake here.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

The money flows where it will get the best return, and Canada has become one of the worst places to invest with all the rules and regulations, government inefficiency, increase in taxation, problems with FN people, etc.

Where is the money going to come from to increase our grid, to supply the EVs? If you say the government, where are they going to get the money? What will be the impact on the power cost?

IMO there are many people these days that think the Government will look after us and solve all our problems, when in fact it's we the people, if given the right incentive and opportunity, will provide the ways and means to do what is required.

You're 100% right.

It amazes me how much people don't see the upcoming problem.

Even building out hydro capacity in big hydro provinces like Quebec & Manitoba has become extremely costly.

As an example Bipole 3 was supposed to cost around $2.5 billion, by the time it was done it cost $5 billion. Keeyask was supposed to have cost $6.5 billion, in the end it cost $8.7 billion. Manitoba Hydro debt has also run up to $25 billion +, and there is no end in sight. They are literally using 40% of every payment they get from Manitobans each month to service the debt.

In order to build out more capacity which Manitoba should absolutely do and sell to other provinces, who is going to pay for it? In the meantime we can't pay for health care, education, roads, infrastructure, etc.

I really want to know how people think we can possibly afford to build power generating capacity in this country with those kinds of numbers. Unless something major changes and the cost to build becomes much cheaper per mW, we are headed down a one way road towards a energy disaster.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

A combination of Geoengineering , DACC and current renewable growth rates will take care of us as taxation mildly changes behaviour.

This is what annoys me about your posts, even though I for the most part tend to agree with the direction you're going.

You are literally suggesting pie in the sky bull#### will 'take care of us.'

I think you're being far too forgiving of just how incompetent our governments are. The current set of leaders in Canada, especially those that primarily deal with power and energy needs are bone headed stupid. I do not believe for one second that we are going in any direction other than towards an energy disaster with the current set of policies.

Instead of pushing the carbon tax, the federal government should be working with the top 10 cities in Canada to develop massive public transit infrastructure that literally reduces the need for car transportation.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Does drawing power at night, when we have lots of solar added, and producing peak in the daytime make sense? You'd be incentivizing grid batteries rather than base-load, I think. And if we just add NG to mostly power EV's, does that make sense environmentally? I know that EVs are better even on NG, but it's not a huge difference.

It would probably depend on what the demand is during non-peak hours, and what the grid is capable of producing.

Not sure I think BBS idea is practical. Would make a lot more sense for Enmax to supply people with battery storage & possibly even solar that charges during non-peak hours, and then discharges during peak hours thereby reducing peak demand.

Enmax could also pay you to discharge into the grid during peak hours if there is more demand than they have capacity for at that specific time.

I believe this is being done is some countries already.

Tesla also did this a few months ago with their virtual power plant experiment.

This new version of the Virtual Power Plant actually compensates Powerwall owners $2 per kWh that they contribute to the grid during emergency load reduction events. Homeowners are expected to get between $10 and $60 per event.

Many Tesla Powerwall owners participating in the event are reporting being credited between $30 and $40 for the short event.

The electric utility needed the capacity amid a heat wave and increased demand for electricity and the VPP replaced the use of a peaker plant, which is more costly and more polluting.

https://electrek.co/2022/09/02/tesla...plant-growing/

[Fuzz]

Why would Enmax pay for individual batteries in people's houses vs grid storage? Grid storage is much more efficient, and gives them control.

It may make sense to utilize batteries individuals purchase if they want to sell it back, but paying to put them in people's homes makes little sense.

Before we go paying for solar on people's homes, we should maybe force companies to utilize their vast amounts of empty rooftops. The could store the excess power onsite, and dispatch as needed. Similar to what you are suggesting, but on a scale that makes sense. I'm amazed we don't require solar over a certain flat sq footage roof. Look at all this brand new wasted space.

https://goo.gl/maps/yYjsptgYf2QwMNKo7

This is the only solar installed, and just south are 2 massive buildings that dwarf the space capacity, not to mention all the space west of there.

https://goo.gl/maps/ovsGMJ9nnDwVCREz6

[Azure]

I suppose they wouldn't really pay for your storage, but being able to pay you to discharge into the grid would create an incentive for people to buy their own solar + battery storage.

Otherwise you are correct. There is a lot of room for solar, but who is supposed to pay for it? We have a lot of roof top access as well (65k square feet), and the costs simply don't line up for payback. Unless the government subsidizes it a lot more than they currently are, hard to see how it works.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

I suppose they wouldn't really pay for your storage, but being able to pay you to discharge into the grid would create an incentive for people to buy their own solar + battery storage.

Otherwise you are correct. There is a lot of room for solar, but who is supposed to pay for it? We have a lot of roof top access as well (65k square feet), and the costs simply don't line up for payback. Unless the government subsidizes it a lot more than they currently are, hard to see how it works.

Municipalities just have to require a certain amount of it. If the financial side is so out of whack it doesn't make sense(I just can't see that given the size and ability to sell back), then you use some carbon tax funds to subsidize. We are going to have to force companies into this if they aren't doing it themselves.

It makes little sense to subsidize homes for solar trying to squeeze a few panels on a non-optimal roof with all the hardware needed for connectivity/grid feed in duplicated on every house, when we have these vast expanses right in the city that are wasted space that can do it far more economically...

[Azure]

I think the selling back part of it is the issue, as you don't actually get full rate.

The provinces are all different on this. Alberta probably pays a higher rate, but I know Manitoba is pretty bad with paying next to nothing.

Your home versus large rooftop solar access arguments makes a lot of sense. I'd imagine the cost per kW is a lot cheaper on larger roof installs, especially with flat roof access where it is easy to install.

Plus, if some of those businesses would add energy storage and use it to offset their peak costs, they could save a lot more money and the payback would be quicker.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Azure

But what is the tipping point? 25% total EV adoption = offset in carbon output even if you use carbon emission heavy power sources to power the EVs?

Honest question.

There is no tipping point, even under the worst case of charging via coal generation EV is still cleaner. It becomes drastically cleaner when using natural gas and even better using solar.

Every electric vehicle that replaces ICE means emissions are reduced.

Even here in Manitoba where our power is dirt cheap, renewable, etc, etc. Everything you need for a EV friendly environment. If everyone owed an EV and the power grid were built up to handle charging and battery needs + / - 10-20%, suddenly it gets cold and everyone needs 50% more power capacity to get the same amount of range. How do you think the grid will handle that? Not well.

I think people really don't realize what is at stake here.

This is a big challenge. The solution is of course upgrade the grid and just as importantly build out grid storage something that is hardly talked about. Grid storage is going to be huge as is distributed load from homes and cars.

Decentralized storage is going to make the entire system far, far more reliable and resistant to going down.

[Azure]

If more EVs = more coal usage, surely that doesn't mean we have less emissions, does it?

You are assuming that there will be a 1 to 1 replacement.

Not every EV is going to displace a ICE vehicle.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Azure

If more EVs = more coal usage, surely that doesn't mean we have less emissions, does it?

You are assuming that there will be a 1 to 1 replacement.

Not every EV is going to displace a ICE vehicle.

Why can't we replace almost all ICE vehicles with BEVs? This is not going to happen right away and I don't think in 10 years either. For one there are simply too many ICE cars on the road that are still usable people are not going to junk them just for the sake of it. I'm sure the various governments are going to try and bribe people to get rid of their petrol cars something I am very much against.

Let's project forward and imagine where the BEV will be in 2030. Much better range, cheaper, faster charging. At that point there will be no reason to own an ICE car outside of nostalgia, enjoyment that kind of thing.

more coal usage, surely that doesn't mean we have less emissions, does it?

100% yes it does. The total emissions, well to wheel, of a BEV powered by coal is still better than the average ICE car. When you factor in cleaner energy generation the ICE car looks absolutely horrible in comparison.

I think the only major challenge will be recycling batteries, it is feasible (and cost effective) but that doesn't mean it will happen. We still mine all kinds of raw materials and toss away perfectly good ones.

[Azure]

Cobalt production is also a big issue and something the entire world is simply ignoring.

I agree that by the time 2030 rolls around, EV technology will be a pretty amazing.

Unfortunately given the political climate and overall incompetence by our leaders, I do not believe we will have the power generation capabilities for those EVs. We need policy changes on almost every level from how solar is implemented and how rates are paid, to government incentives for private renewable projects, to investment into clean burning natural gas to SMRs, hydro investments, etc, etc.

We need to massively invest into the entire EV ecosystem so that we are not only world leaders in producing the raw materials that are needed to build the EVs, but also that we can sustain the populace actually using them.

To put it into very clear perspective.
Manitoba Hydro is simply not going to be able to build another $10b+ dollar hydro project because of their current debt load. They cannot be spending 60% of their revenue trying to service their debt.

Is that because it is a crown corporation, etc? No idea. But man we are screwed in this province when it comes to further expansion, and we sure aren't helping any of our neighbours either when it comes to building out more capacity.

That is one example.

But there are many across Canada. And these examples are going to prohibit the investment we need to deal with this issue.

At the same time everything else is going to cost more as well. Health care, other infrastructure projects, etc. Who is going to pay for all of this?